Wikipedia wrote:A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

The political scientist Michael Barkun discussing the usage of this term in contemporary American culture holds that a conspiracy theory is a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.[8][9] According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold: First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.

What is your view on the conspiracy theory that claims the world is controlled by a group elite, specially the Rothschild, the Rockefeller and the Morgan in the US and a few other families of Europe?

My uninformed opinion is that the world is far too complex nowadays to be controlled by a couple rich guys.

Do they exert influence on certain events behind the scenes? Sure.Do they wish they could exert more influence and try to work towards that goal? Maybe.Can they increase their influence to reach a point where it would be reasonable to say they "control" the world anytime in the forseeable future? doubtful.

It's interesting to read about what the Rotschild family were up to a couple centuries ago though. I think back then the world was much more amenable to being "controlled".

I usually side with Haggis on the fact that the world is way too complex. But sometimes I like to entertain the thought that they do.

Do you think it's possible to control the world by controlling the money?

For instance, the US is in debt. HUGE debt, but they are not the only country, most third world countries are in debt, but who are they in debt with?

Banks are privately controlled, and they can print money when they want, lower interests, and all of the sudden they can just stop doing it. Then crisis come, like the great depression, or 2008, and the same people that creates all this gets richer.

The US went to Vietnam on an alleged attack (false), they went to Iraq on alleged WMD (false).. WWII was financed in both sides by the bankers.

Is this enough to consider that they control most aspects of our lives?

I don't think any specific families or persons can get away with everything.But for large corporations looking to turn a profit, the influence can be staggering depending on the money and the place.I believe said influence wanes depending on how freely and quickly information can be transmitted and reacted to.If you are a tobacco lobbyist in modern America, you can't get away with too much.If you are Coka-Cola or Nestle in a third-world banana republic, you can pretty much get away with anything, including slavery and murder.

Lootifer wrote:Its no conspiracy theory that the powerful will take actions to maintain their power (largely the fundamental problem with capitalism and/or big government depending on your political alignment).

The net effect of a lot of powerful people taking actions to maintain/increase power is identical to what would happen if there were one or two ultra elites playing the puppet strings.

So my thoughts are the conspiracy theory is not true; however the aggregation of the powerful has the same net effect. That is yes we, the small and weak, are being shafted.

I don't get exactly your point. You said the effects are there and the causes are the same just the name is not correct?

/ wrote:I don't think any specific families or persons can get away with everything.But for large corporations looking to turn a profit, the influence can be staggering depending on the money and the place.I believe said influence wanes depending on how freely and quickly information can be transmitted and reacted to.If you are a tobacco lobbyist in modern America, you can't get away with too much.If you are Coka-Cola or Nestle in a third-world banana republic, you can pretty much get away with anything, including slavery and murder.

But what if a bunch of families own the most important corporations? Exxon, Mobil, Citi, Chase ? Can their lobbies dictate enough policies?

How can a politician resist the money they have, or the power?

Last edited by nietzsche on Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No way are the Rothchilds conjoined with the Rockefellers, well they are now and for the last five decades, but in a, you know I'm rich your rich way. The Rothchilds aren't influential anyway. They just spearheaded the U.N., Isreal, and control most of the worlds central banks. But though their fortunes were built on funding wars they sparked, these strategy failed miserably for them during WWII, as their news agencies have widely reported and their Swiss banks lost huge amounts lending money to all the nations involved bc the taxpayers refused to repay these loans or something apparently. They therefore were unable to earn interest on the money they print from thin air with their symbolism all over it. Terrible business model, destined to fail.

nietzsche wrote:I don't get exactly your point. You said the effects are there and the causes are the same just the name is not correct?

My point is that there isnt any small group of powerful families running the show (the conspiracy theory). However the net effect of lots and lots of powerful people and organisations all using their relevant power to maintain and increase their own power holdings has the same net effect as if it was only one or two individuals doing it.

nope. the richest man on earth is mexican my friend.regarding conspiration theories, I think some points are valid but there is too many paranoid bullshit on top that there is not one therory, there are multiple theories that are all supposed to converge. therefore the conspiracy theory is bullshit as it helds too many bs; but it would be stupid to deny everything.

1. Any conspiracy theory you've heard about is bunk. Any group or person who has the resources and wherewithal to engineer a galactic conspiracy certainly is able to keep it off YouTube.

2. That said ... a few years ago Dr. Ola Tunander of the University of Oslo observed ...

Ola Tunander wrote:In a 1955 study of the United States State Department, Hans Morgenthau discussed the existence of a US ‘dual state.' According to Morgenthau, the US state includes both a ‘regular state hierarchy’ that acts according to the rule of law and a more or less hidden ‘security hierarchy’—which I will refer to here as the ‘security state’ —that not only acts in parallel to the former but also monitors and exerts control over it. In Morgenthau’s view, this security aspect of the state—the ‘security state’—is able to ‘exert an effective veto over the decisions’ of the regular state governed by the rule of law. While the ‘democratic state’ offers legitimacy to security politics, the ‘security state’ intervenes where necessary, by limiting the range of democratic politics. While the ‘democratic state’ deals with political alternatives, the ‘security state’ enters the scene when NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTS. This aspect of the state is what Carl Schmitt, in his 1922 work Political Theology, referred to as the ‘sovereign’.

Logically speaking, one might argue that Morgenthau’s ‘dual state’ is derived from the same duality as that described in Ernst Fraenkel’s conception of the ‘dual state’, which Fraenkel described as typifying the Nazi regime of Hitler’s Germany. In the Nazi case, though, this duality was overt - unlike the US, where it is covert - combining the ‘regular’ legal state with a parallel ‘prerogative state’, a paramilitary emergency state or MACHSTAAT that operated outside the legal system, with its philosophical foundation in the Schmittian ‘sovereign.' Fraenkel refers to Emil Lederer, who argues that this has its historical origins in the European aristocratic elite, which still played an important role within European society after the triumph of democracy.

Are you all ok with the fact that a private group gets to print money for free, without backing it out with gold, then give it to the government and the tax payer gets to work for that money? Money spent for instance for the 2008 bailout?

Americans were royally fucked in 2008. Banks caused the crisis and the government told them to print more money to save themselves, the taxpayer would pay.

Furthermore, after 9/11 Americans can be tortured, kidnapped, recorded, they lost their privacy. The government controls the use of force to their discretion, and the elite group controls the money. Politicians will pass but the elite group will stay there, controlling what politicians can actually be elected to the important charges.

If politicians aren't controlled by this elite group, why did they approve the bailout? That was a 12" inch dick up the American ass.

I don't believe in this Rothchild or whatever hubub, I don't believe in the Illuminati, I don't believe that the Moon Landing was faked, but I know a real conspiracy when I see one.

The commissioners of the NFL, NHL, and NBA are good-for-nothing corrupt bastards who don't care about the game, don't care about polluting the game, they just care about making their moneys, sharing their moneys with the owners, and then shafting the players and refs in the organizations (to varying degrees, because I do think that athletes are overpaid, but they're really just getting fucked by their white slave-owners. Also in terms of player health and who has to pay for that in the long run).

Example: Goodell makes ruling on Saints bounty scandal, appoints himself as the arbitrator. Stern and NBA buy NO Hornets, refuse to make trades with the Lakers which the GM made based on his assessment that it would benefit the team, because it doesn't help the NBA's bottom line or the sellability of the Hornets. And when they finally do get sold, having no bad contracts, and essentially no players on the roster, they are magically awarded the top draft pick (yeah, I'm calling conspiracy on that shit still, I don't even have a stake in the Clips/Lakers/Hornets and I think it was bullshit). Last example would be the NHL, definitely the least corrupt of the 3, but jesus, record profits and marketability, contract with EA, making the best sports game experience of the last 10 years (although they may have lost that title recently), and yet, 2 lockouts in less than a decade because the owners aren't making enough? Suck a cock, Bettman and NHL ownership.

And yes, I do see that I failed to mention the MLB. Is there some MLB based conspiracy theory that I'm overlooking, probably, but at least everything seems on the up and up in their league.

Wikipedia wrote:A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

The political scientist Michael Barkun discussing the usage of this term in contemporary American culture holds that a conspiracy theory is a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.[8][9] According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold: First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.

What is your view on the conspiracy theory that claims the world is controlled by a group elite, specially the Rothschild, the Rockefeller and the Morgan in the US and a few other families of Europe?

Is this a thing of mad men or there's truth to this?

Wait. Why would there need to be a "conspiracy" in order to think it remotely possible that the richest families in the world are the "movers and shakers" in the world?

Sounds exactly the way we should expect/assume the richest families to operate, IE stay rich

Wikipedia wrote:A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

The political scientist Michael Barkun discussing the usage of this term in contemporary American culture holds that a conspiracy theory is a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end.[8][9] According to Barkun, the appeal of conspiracism is threefold: First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what institutional analysis cannot. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters' deceptions.

What is your view on the conspiracy theory that claims the world is controlled by a group elite, specially the Rothschild, the Rockefeller and the Morgan in the US and a few other families of Europe?

Is this a thing of mad men or there's truth to this?

Wait. Why would there need to be a "conspiracy" in order to think it remotely possible that the richest families in the world are the "movers and shakers" in the world?

Sounds exactly the way we should expect/assume the richest families to operate, IE stay rich

Yes,why would anyone think democratically elected politicians have more clout than the super rich?I realised this in adolescence.

You cant control the world with military. You control through finance. Debt is slavery. They need more people to take on more debt to keep economy rolling. Fractional banking helps a lot. I want loan you print money I fail to pay you get my property and resourses. Nice scam.

Corporations are now government. Corporation has money gives it to lobbyist. Lobbyist in return goes to government says " we give you money you get elected and pass laws to make us more money". Ever wonder why a lot of large corporations either have an all seeing eye or a triangle as their logo. Ever wonder why only a few companies own most of the stations you watch on TV. We have very few real choices in this life.

Since all members with real business knowledge were under the threat of disinheritence, their business dealings have been largely undisclosed. A few years ago they made an archive available which would seem to go against this, but these archives are carefully controlled.

One of the best known business dealings was orchestrated by Nathan, one of the 5 sons which represented their London branch. This deal was too public to keep quiet.

On the Rothschild's official website, their timeline shows that they supplied Wellington with gold in 1815. It would have been strange not to being that their first millions were gained funding other wars, and their place in Britian and ability to gain proximity with politicians would have suffered. Just as it would have been amiss if his brother in Paris didn't help fund the French side.

But bankers don't earn money by giving it away. The British had to pay for their wars and issued consuls, which are similar to bonds. At the time the Rothchilds weren't the richest bankers around, but they were the most spread out. This meant that the 5 brothers and their father needed a network of couriers between their six respective financial arms to take advantage of both sides of a situation, they also had to buy in to both sides. And other bankers knew this.

This is the story of their "Coup do Coups":

"Arriving at the Exchange amid frantic speculation on the outcome of the battle, Nathan took up his usual position beside the famous 'Rothschild Pillar.' Without a sign of emotion, without the slightest change of facial expression the stony-faced, flint eyed chief of the House of Rothschild gave a predetermined signal to his agents who were stationed nearby.

Rothschild agents immediately began to dump consuls on the market. As hundred of thousands of dollars worth of consuls poured onto the market their value started to slide. Then they began to plummet.

Nathan continued to lean against 'his' pillar, emotionless, expressionless. He continued to sell, and sell and sell. Consuls kept on falling. Word began to sweep through the Stock Exchange: "Rothschild knows." "Rothschild knows." "Wellington has lost at Waterloo."

The selling turned into a panic as people rushed to unload their 'worthless' consuls or paper money for gold and silver in the hope of retaining at least part of their wealth. Consuls continued their nosedive towards oblivion. After several hours of feverish trading the consul lay in ruins. It was selling for about five cents on the dollar.

Nathan Rothschild, emotionless as ever, still leaned against his pillar. He continued to give subtle signals. But these signals were different. They were so bubtly different that only the highly trained Rothschild agents could detect the change. On the cue from their boss, dozens of Rothschild agents made their way to the order desks around the Exchange and bought every consul in sight for just a 'song'!

A short time later the 'official' news arrived in the British capital. England was now the master of the European scene.

Within seconds the consul skyrocketed to above its original value. As the significance of the British victory began to sink into the public consciousness, the value of consuls rose even higher.

Napoleon had 'met his Waterloo.'

Nathan had bought control of the British economy.

Overnight, his already vast fortune was multiplied twenty times over."

What I like best about this, is that the Rothschilds didn't even need the couriers or the info, they just needed people to know they had them and believe they had the info. This is because it didn't matter who won to them, what mattered was that they would get paid for the war. And the war's IOU was written on consuls/bonds held by several banks on both sides of the channel.

The only info that the Rothschilds really needed was that the other bankers were nervous about the outcome. They then had to feed the nerves. The human brain thinks it learns from witnessing a repeated action, this is the basis for magic and deceit. Rothschild is selling, he is still selling, he is still fucking selling. Why the f*ck is he selling? Someone whispered in his ear? Who? One of his couriers...maybe he knows the result.

On the English side, this is clearly remembered: Nathan Rothschild looted the British through foreknowledge. What about the French side? When would be a good time to sell and rebuy the bonds issued by the French government? Why the very same time and in the very same way. The difference is on the French side they buy a debt for very little and it isn't seen as a profit. From a market perspective, there isn't much net loss whoever wins, that is: 1 +1 still equals 2, but the brothers buy at 0.05 + 0.05. They make huge profits immediately on the consuls and can control France by dangling the debt and profiting of it as needed in cash and influence.

The Rothschilds gain control of the two strongest economies in the world with the illusion of knowledge and became richer than all other banks combined. If you take this into perspective, they became the richest entity in the world without the debts that comparable wealth demand: responsibility to its subjects. In fact kings and presidents are replaced but the debt stays. The best part is that the IMF and World Bank, both founded by the Rothschilds, has been providing debt to leaders that then often transfer the funds right back to the Rothschilds' Swiss banks into personal accounts. The nations who receive these loans have a long list of conditions, usually giving up their resources, natural and nationalized. Rothschilds own De Beers for example. A lump sum for if you give up your income streams. I buy up your income streams cheaply, and the money I pay goes towards paying off your debt, that is, you give the money I just gave you back to me. I then triple water prices and electricity. Your population clamours, and I lend you more money to buy them back at triple. The leader gets a fat bank account, the population gets their water and the Rothschilds get interest on much more than they risked as well as total sway over a country and their luxury resources. If a country doesn't play ball, another Rothschild brainchild takes over, the UN.

The New Media Monopoly describes the cartel of five giant media conglomerates who now control the media on which a majority of Americans say they most rely. These five are not just large — though they are all among the 325 largest corporations in the world — they are unique among all huge corporations: they are a major factor in changing the politics of the United States and they condition the social values of children and adults alike.

These five huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States.

These Big Five (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) do not manufacture automobiles, or clothing, or nuts and bolts. They manufacture politics and social values. The media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country. They have almost single-handedly as a group, in their radio and television dominance, produced a coarse and vulgar culture that celebrates the most demeaning characteristics in the human psyche — greed, deceit, and cheating as a legitimate way to win (as in the various "reality" shows).

It is not just national economics that is at stake — though their power has led to the government's somnolence of anti-trust action. Nor is it just the neglect of broadcast media giantism by the government agencies that by law are still required to operate "in the public interest." The public interest is to have the country's largest broadcasting system in the world provide diversity in news, opinion, and commentary that serves all Americans, right, left, and independent, as well as access to their local stations as well as true choices in national programs.

What is at stake is American democracy itself. A country without all the significant news, points of view, and information its citizens need to be informed voters is risking the loss of democratic rights. Voters without genuine choices and without the information they need to choose what meets their own needs and wishes has produced something alarming: on Election Day our voters are forced to vote for what is the narrowest political choices among all industrial democracies of the world.